The Supreme Court on Friday refused to give the Appu Ghar management more time to hand over the possession of its land to the apex court.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to give the Appu Ghar management more time to hand over the possession of its land to the apex court and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).
The Appu Ghar management had pleaded that it should be given time till the Estate Officer, Land and Development Authority, who is hearing the matter concluded his proceedings.
"In the last order we had already directed that pendency of the proceeding would not come in the way of handing over the possession of the land," the Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat said while dismissing the plea of the amusement park.
The apex court on November 30 had directed the management to hand over the possession of its land. It had also asked the Estate Officer to conclude his proceedings by the end of January.
The Bench had passed the order while dealing with a bunch of petitions filed by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), International Amusement Park Limited (IPAL) which runs the Appu Ghar and DMRC.
The SCBA and DMRC had approached the apex court after the Delhi High Court refused to give any direction on a plea by the advocates' body for relocation of the amusement park to facilitate construction of lawyers' chamber on the land it is occupying.
The High Court had said the matter had to be examined by the Estate Officer. It also quashed the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the issue was restricted to the domain of the Estate Officer.
Besides the SCBA's proposal to construct the lawyers' chambers, there is also a plan to construct administrative wings of the Supreme Court and a Metro Station on the 14.5 acre land occupied by Appu Ghar.
Appu Ghar, which is operating at the land since 1987 through a lease agreement, was served with an eviction notice in 1999 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by the Government.
As per the lease agreement, the two parties agreed to refer the dispute to an arbitrator following which a single judge of the Delhi High Court had appointed Justice Ranganathan to mediate in the dispute.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the appointment of the arbitrator, upon which the amusement house filed an SLP in the apex court.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}